SynthesisPloS one2019
Effectiveness of home fire safety interventions. A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions for Preventing Residential Fires in Vulnerable Neighbourhoods and Indigenous Communities: A Systematic Review of the Literature.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- A multi-scalar perspective on health and urban housing: an umbrella review.Buildings & cities · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the effectiveness of Home Fire Safety (HFS) interventions versus other interventions/no interventions/controls on HFS knowledge and behaviour at short-, intermediate- and long-term follow ups.
designSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed databases were searched from January 1998 to July 2018, and studies retrieved.
participantsToddlers, children (primary or secondary school), teenagers or adults. INTERVENTIONS/COMPARISON: HFS interventions compared to other interventions / no interventions / controls. OUTCOMES: HFS knowledge and behaviour.
results10 studies were identified (8 RCTs and 2 prospective cohort). Two studies assessed the effects of HFS interventions vs no interventions on HFS knowledge at up to 4 months follow up in school children and demonstrated significant difference between groups (very low quality, 2 RCTs, 535 participants, SMD 0.38, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.55, p < 0.001). One study examined the effects of different modes of HFS interventions (computer-based vs instructor-led) on HFS knowledge and behaviour immediately post-intervention in adults and displayed no significant difference between groups (HFS knowledge; very low quality, 1 RCT, 68 participants, SMD -0.02, 95% CI: -0.50 to 0.45, p = 0.92) and (HFS behaviour; very low quality, 1 RCT, 68 participants, SMD 0.06, 95% CI: -0.41 to 0.54, p = 0.79) respectively.
conclusionThe limited evidence supports the use of HFS interventions to improve HFS knowledge and behaviour in children, families with children and adults.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.